Charlie Kirk Assassination Breakdown with Former CIA Officer Jason Hanson

In part three of our deep dive into the Charlie Kirk assassination, we go beyond the headlines to uncover what really happened in Utah. Former CIA officer Jason Hanson joins us to break down the security failures, the evidence against the accused shooter, and the larger questions this tragedy raises about political violence, free speech, and public safety in America. Don’t miss this exclusive conversation with an intelligence insider who knows how to separate fact from speculation.

Check Out Our Merchandise Store

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:21):
Oh thing, you're working working it up.

Speaker 2 (00:41):
Hello and welcome to Investigator Podcast.

Speaker 3 (00:43):
I'm your host Shadow alongside my beautiful wife Sherry. On
tonight's episode, this is part three of our series on
the Charlie Kirk assassination. We have moved beyond the shock
of the tragic day and into deeper questions, who is
really behind the trigger, what evidence has surfaced, and what
does this mean for free speech and political safety in America.
To help us cut through this noise, we're joined by
former CI officer Jason Hanson, a man who spent is

(01:06):
a career in the shadows of intelligence and now teaches
Americans how to protect themselves. His insight on security motives
and the bigger picture could shed light on what the
mainstream media will not touch.

Speaker 2 (01:18):
Guys, welcome to the show.

Speaker 3 (01:20):
It is the September sixteenth, twenty twenty five episode. Very
very happy to have a Jason Hansen back on the show. Jason,
welcome back to the show.

Speaker 4 (01:27):
Man, Great to be back. Thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:34):
Yeah, not a problem, Jason.

Speaker 3 (01:36):
Obviously, we have had two episodes on the Charlie Kirk
assassination already. This is something that our podcast talks about
quite often. I think we've had you on the show
a couple of times, and you know, when we first
did our first episode, this was probably about two hours
after the assassination happened, and obviously in that two hours,

(01:57):
there were all these videos that were flowing on line
to where it showed in graphic nature the loss of
someone that has, in our opinion at least been out
there fighting for free speech, been out there fighting for
the conservative movement, but also just testifying and given his
belief of his God and Jesus and everything that kind

(02:18):
of wrapped into that. Although obviously a lot of the
people on the left say, you know, he was a
very divisive figure. He spread and spewed hate. But I
can't even say enough about how hard it was to
get through that first episode after seeing those graphic images
of Charlie Kirk being assassinated. And I think that for
so many people in this world. It's not just in
the United States. This has taken over places like the

(02:40):
UK and Australia to where there are mass events that
are happening in memory.

Speaker 2 (02:46):
Of Charlie Kirk.

Speaker 3 (02:48):
Can you just tell me where were you when you
found out the news and how did it affect you,
especially as an ex or former CIA officer.

Speaker 5 (02:57):
So I was in my office at the time, and
I had been doing a bunch of conference calls, talking
with clients and whatnot, and I just happened to get
on the internet just taking a kind of a brain
dumb break, meaning I was just on you know, see
what's going on in the news, Fox News kind of thing,
And that's when I first learned about it, And of course,
like everybody else, I was shocked and thought it was

(03:19):
horrible and tragic, and I mean, what a what a smart.

Speaker 4 (03:24):
Young man doing great work.

Speaker 5 (03:26):
Yeah, and we're all familiar with the phrase that, uh,
you know, Satan makes evil look good and good look evil,
and that's exactly what Satan did in this case, is
you know, people saying horrible things about him. He was
obviously doing the right thing, was he was preaching the truth,
preaching his faith and everything that all of us should
be doing.

Speaker 4 (03:46):
So it's just, yeah, a horrible, horrible loss.

Speaker 2 (03:49):
Yeah, for sure.

Speaker 3 (03:50):
Can you give us a little bit of your background, obviously,
former CIA and you know, with podcasts like ours, with
everything this crazy going on in the world and twenty
twenty five, you know, there's a lot of people that
blame the government, Blame the CIA, blame FBI, blame a
lot of these heads of our agencies as like maybe

(04:12):
a deep state tool or whatever you want to say.
But give us just a little bit of your background
in the CIA. How did you how did you even
get involved in that? And you know, was there a
specialty for you?

Speaker 4 (04:26):
So agency was great. I love the CIA.

Speaker 5 (04:29):
I think the men and women who do the work
there are wonderful. It's amazing. I got in there because
I was blessed to be born and raised in the Washington,
DC area, So I had all these government aid agencies
kind of in my backyard. And when I graduated from college,
I didn't know what the heck I wanted to be
when I grew up. So I applied to a bunch
of different organizations. I got job offers from the Secret

(04:49):
Service in the CIA. I decided to go with the agency.
I was there for seven years, and again I have
nothing bad to say about it. I left the AGENC
see just because it's a single man's game. I wanted
to get married and have a wife and kids. I'm
now married, I have seven kids. I run a private
security company. We do all kinds of security work, a

(05:09):
lot of executive protection work on celebrities, especially musicians. So
that's what I'm doing with my life at this time.

Speaker 2 (05:16):
Yeah, so let me ask you this.

Speaker 3 (05:20):
Let's just start with that day, because this is what
we're here to talk about, is Charlie Kirk. And from
your professional background, especially doing executive protection, you know what
stands out to you as the most obvious failure on
what happened that day. Obviously, Charlie Kirk is not a
political I guess you can say he's not a congressman,

(05:40):
he's not a senator, he's not a president. He is
a political figure, but he is not afforded obviously secret
service protection. But what should have been done different that
day to protect him? And was his security lacking? I mean,
should they have been looking out for people like this
on rooftops, especially knowing how you know far the left

(06:01):
has talked about Charlie Kirk and you know, even going
as far as to say that they wanted to kill
him before.

Speaker 5 (06:08):
So there's obviously a massive difference between the private sector
and the government. So in the government, like you said,
they've got Secret Service detail. They can shut down highways,
they can shut down buildings, hotels, they can do whatever.
And of course, even if you do all that, we
saw Trump almost get assassinated. So even if you have
the world's best protection, it doesn't always work. And then
the private sector, what a lot of people don't realize

(06:30):
is it's expensive. People don't want to pay for it.
People don't want to have as many people surrounding them.
So they said, we do a lot of celebrity protection,
and they'll say, no, I only want one bodyguard. You know,
I don't want to be shadowed by four different bodyguards.

Speaker 4 (06:43):
I only want one.

Speaker 5 (06:44):
And you know, hey, when I come out of the store,
I want you to hold on to my coffee and
my bag. Well, that's not real executive protection, that's customer service.
And you know, many of these people are lucky they
don't have a serious threat because they wouldn't survive it,
because having only one bodyguard is not going to work. Well,
same thing. Obviously Arlei Kirk had more than that, but
there's threat assessments, threat assessments. So I'm sure his team

(07:07):
did threat assessments and saw, hey, he's got these death threats.
They investigated him. It's not serious enough, and they probably
felt they didn't need the true amount of security. So
I can't remember if they said he had four security
or six security team members. I don't remember the exact number,
but obviously, depending on the threats, you should have double that.
And it goes back to logistics and not wanting to

(07:28):
pay for it, not wanting to do it, and so
it's very difficult to operate the right way in the
private sector because your client doesn't always want it, your
client doesn't always want to afford it, or they say, well, no,
don't worry about it. I don't want you to have
to do this. I want you to hold like I said,
hold my cop coffee instead. So it's that fine balance,

(07:50):
and that's why most of the political figures in the
private sector, the Ben Shapiro's, the Charlie Kirks, their security
is waya when I say, las don't have. It is
way under what they need to be, and it's just
hard to do it the right way.

Speaker 3 (08:05):
When it comes to law enforcement, we hear there's only
six law enforcement officers that were on scene here. Now
does is it afforded to people like Charlie Kirk, especially
on a public university, that law enforcement comes out to
help that protection or is that mostly all on private security.

Speaker 5 (08:21):
Well, here's we got to realize about the police there.
So you're going to university, you're saying, hey, we're having this.
They put a few officers there, these officers, and this
is not to disrespect them whatsoever, because my very first
job out of college was as a police officer. Is
they're sitting there used to dealing with some dumb punks
college kids getting in a fight. They are not trained
to watch out for threats, for snipers, all that kind

(08:43):
of stuff. So they're hanging around watching in the crowd
among people saying, hey, we just want to make sure
there's no shoving match going on. We want to make
sure that nobody's going to throw a bottle of the
kid or whatever. So they don't have this skill set.
They're obviously not secret service officers or intelligence officers who
have been trained on high levels of threat assessment. So

(09:03):
you know, it doesn't matter if you had six officers there,
probably doesn't matter if you have twenty five officers there,
because again, they're not trained for what they really need
to be trained for, which is watching out the sniper
on the roof, watching out for the serious threats. They're
trained to make sure that dumb college kids don't get
in a fistfight.

Speaker 3 (09:19):
Yeah, and so even with that, though, even with private security,
if say that one of Charlie Kirk's private security guys
saw someone on the roof, what could they have done?
I mean, could they have actually taken this guy out
or what is kind of the rules of engagement with that?

Speaker 5 (09:36):
So if you're trained, right, the rules of engagement are
always covering evacuate. So let's say that somebody spots the
threat on the roof, right, Hey, that guy looks suspicious.
You're immediately rushing and pounding and pounding what I mean
is jumping on top of the principle the person you're protecting.
So exactly like when Trump almost got assassinated, you know
the saw the Secret Service immediately pounce on them, and

(09:57):
you know they're covering up with their bodies. It's always
covering a BacT because when you're getting fired on, that's
the danger zone, that's the threat zone.

Speaker 4 (10:04):
You want to get out of their asap.

Speaker 5 (10:06):
So if they have the proper training and they were
worried about the threats, which again we have no idea
what threats were coming at that time as of now,
I don't have any idea. We don't know what threats
were specific for Utah Valley University, but if they had
been serious threats, they would have at least I mean,
they're not gonna most of these bodyguards are not trained snipers.
So it's not like they're going to sit on top

(10:27):
of a roof and they're going to be counter snipers.
What they're going to do at the minimum and say, Okay,
we're going to take out our binoculars. We're gonna scam
for the surroundings. We're gonna see we see anything dangerous
if the threat level warranted that, which I'm guessing it
did not at the time or never had.

Speaker 4 (10:44):
So that's all it is is.

Speaker 5 (10:45):
It's very you know, if you're trained, right easy because okay,
we see threat, we're not going to try and take
out that threat. We're not trained counter snipers. We are
just going to cover and evacuate asap.

Speaker 2 (10:54):
Yeah. Do you really think this guy acted alone?

Speaker 3 (10:57):
I mean, obviously today in the congressional hearings, Mattel said,
you know, we're actually tracking down a lot of leads
on this, and then you hear you know, the prosecutor
in Utah saying today in the press conference that you know,
as of right now, we only know him as acting alone.

Speaker 2 (11:12):
What is kind of the.

Speaker 3 (11:14):
Difference in the federal investigation versus the state and local investigation.
How much will local know as far as a bigger
network that maybe he was involved in, rather than what.

Speaker 5 (11:24):
The prosecutor in Utah actually knows. Well, here's what I
believe is. I believe it was him acting alone. However,
he was obviously heavily influenced. So in the intelligence business,
we have what are called useful idiots. So what are
useful idiots? Well, hey, we don't like this person, so
we want this person to be dead. We know we
can brainwash this knucklehead. So think about the perfect useful

(11:47):
idiot is a suicide bomber. Right, somebody's so dumb that
they're willing to strap on a bomb and go blow
themselves up.

Speaker 4 (11:53):
Right.

Speaker 5 (11:53):
Those are the type of useful idiots that terrorists look for,
that intelligence organizations look for. That obviously, people online spreading
a hate look for.

Speaker 4 (12:03):
So they have these.

Speaker 5 (12:04):
Different forms and say, hey, we've got a kid who's
clearly radicalized, who's clearly a nut job.

Speaker 4 (12:08):
We can push him over the edge.

Speaker 5 (12:10):
So I one hundred percent those people are out there,
and that's what probably the FEDS in the state are
looking for right now is who really brainwashed and influenced
this kid and sent him over the edge, and they
saw this was a vulnerable person who was dumb enough
to do something this horrific.

Speaker 2 (12:25):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (12:25):
Yeah, and so we're already hearing about, you know, organizations
and we've talked a lot about organizations like the Open
Society Foundation, George Soros, and obviously if you look at
the you look at all of the mass riots and
all of the kind of coordinated, sanctioned I guess protest
as you call them to where they're funded, they're organized.
I know George Soros has done a lot of that.
The Trump administration recently has been talking about this. How

(12:47):
much do you think, you know, when you look at
an event like this, and especially from like the CI perspective,
how much influence does these NGOs like the Open Society
Foundation really have on not only are pob politics but
also just people like maybe Tyler Robinson.

Speaker 4 (13:04):
A big, big effect.

Speaker 5 (13:05):
So there was an intelligence operation years ago and it
was a socialist country, incredibly socialist, and there are all
these organizations obviously influencing socialism.

Speaker 4 (13:16):
Socialism is the greatest thing in the world. Socialism is wonderful.

Speaker 5 (13:18):
I mean, we got this knucklehead in New York City
running for mayor who's like, I'm a democratic socialist, I'm
gonna do all these things that any intelligence person knows
are horrible and won't work.

Speaker 4 (13:27):
But anyway, back to.

Speaker 5 (13:28):
This country, there was this guy that the US governor
was trying to recruit. There was all these people trying
to influence socialism, and somebody finally said to him, one
of my buddies, like, hey, listen, how in the world
can you believe in socialism? It is horrible, It doesn't work.
History shows it doesn't work the people. It affects horribly
the average person. And he says, well, yeah, you're one

(13:49):
hundred percent right. Socialism is horrible unless you're the top.
And I'm at the top, so it works great for me.
So if you're the George Soroses of the world, if
you're the Congressman's of the world who up top, well,
of course they want to spread this. They want to
brainwash the populace because there are the top and it
works good for them.

Speaker 2 (14:06):
Yeah, for sure. And you had mentioned a word just
a minute ago. Useful idiot.

Speaker 3 (14:10):
When stuff like this happens, if you're on X whatsoever,
which we are all the time, there is everyone blaming everybody.
And it goes everywhere from Israel to George Soros, to
LGBTQ to you name it. I mean, there's always conspiracies,
there's always blame. Right now, you have Candice Owins and
you have some of these people that are saying, hey,

(14:30):
this is what was for sure Israel. You know, Charlie
Kirk started to kind of turn on Israel a little
bit over the past couple of months. He started to
kind of, you know, step back a little bit from Israel.
There's some wording here that I guess Israel come and met.

Speaker 2 (14:44):
With Charlie Kirk.

Speaker 3 (14:44):
I think this is actually at least validated that they
did offer Turning Point USA and Charlie Kirk one hundred
and fifty million dollars to invest into Turning Point USA.
Some people say that was to be more pro Israel.
Whatever the case is, he had turned it down. And
then there's also word that he was also offered a
trip to Israel, which he also turned down. Now, the

(15:07):
one interesting thing about this whole topic is and I
want to get this out of the way already because
we've had a million questions. I actually asked people on
our Instagram and some of our social medias, I said,
what would you want to ask Jason? And I can
promise you the number one question was about Israel, So
I do have to ask this. But even Nick Fuintest,
which is one of the most anti Israel people there is,

(15:30):
when it comes to I mean, all of his work,
everything he's done has mostly been anti Israel.

Speaker 2 (15:35):
Very smart guy, very well.

Speaker 3 (15:37):
Spoken, for sure, but he even came out last night
in one of his big streams he had I don't know,
two hundred thousand people watching, and he had said, look, guys,
I hate to tell you all this, but like, I
don't think this was Israel that did this, only because
Charlie Kirk has been so pro Israel his entire career
and obviously people's stance on this is like, well, but

(15:59):
maybe they thought CHARGE was starting to turn against Israel.
Now you as a former CIA guy, and we've talked
a lot about Massad, and actually Cherry and I have
talked back and forth on this podcast. We've debated, we've
kind of disagreed, on certain things. Sherry's family is Jewish.
I come from a Christian household. There's obviously differences in

(16:19):
religion there. But just as far as the intelligence aspect
of this, Masad and CIA, how close are Masad and CIA,
And how much influence do you think that Masad in
Israel truly has on our government politics and intelligence.

Speaker 4 (16:38):
So I'm a big fan of Masad. They do awesome work.

Speaker 5 (16:40):
They are incredible at what they do, and they are
allowed to push the envelope a heck of a lot
more than the US government is than the CIA does,
So I think they're great. They're absolutely trained. Obviously, the
agency works very closely with them when it depending on
what it is. I mean, it is an intelligence operation
where they need to work closely. So yeah, I mean,
of course they're talking together when they need to. Now,

(17:04):
as far as the theories that hey, Israel had involved
in this, No, I don't believe that at all.

Speaker 4 (17:09):
That Israel's not going to do that. They don't want
to do it.

Speaker 5 (17:11):
However, the person behind this, most likely again a very
liberal organization.

Speaker 4 (17:17):
Well guess what, Israel's a perfect scapegoat. So they love
the fact that.

Speaker 5 (17:22):
Everybody's saying, well, Israel did this, Israel did this, Israel
did this. But no, like if somebody said, hey, you know,
you've got to bet your life on that, you know
ninety nine percent that Israel had to know involved with
this involvement in this, I would say, yes, ninety nine percent,
Israel had zero involvement in this. That's just not something
they would do or want to do, especially because of
how pro Israel he is. So but it goes back

(17:44):
to there are the liberal organizations who say, all right,
let's make Israel look like the bad guy. Let's brainwash
this young man, let's have it not tie back to
us at all. And then we know that there are
so many conspiracy theories out there, will plant seeds, We'll
go on the forums and say, hey, guys, do you
think this is Israel? So if people don't think that
all these liberal organizations have their quote unquote bots working

(18:05):
for them who go on all the forums and spread
these Israel theories, well of course they do. They want
to figure to point elsewhere. And it's kind of you know,
intelligence brainwashing one on one.

Speaker 2 (18:14):
Yeah, for sure.

Speaker 3 (18:16):
And you know, and to that point too, it's like
even with the you know, the CIA and talking about
that with so many conspiracies around CIA, like how much
do CI involve themselves in US politics or the things
that happened. Maybe you've heard the conspiracies around JFK and
maybe who was connected to all of that? Like how
much of this Israel stuff do you think is true
or not? And obviously you're coming from an intelligence perspective.

(18:39):
And there has been other CIA guys that have been
on other podcasts, like Sean Ryan and whoever that kind
of pivot and say certain things. There was actually a
good example on Patrick Bett David where there was a
CI officer and I cannot remember this guy's name, you
might know who he is, but he had actually got charged,
I believe, with espionage. And one of the things that

(19:00):
he did say though, was that every time the Israelis
came into the CIA buildings, that every single time they
found listening devices or some type of bug on them,
every single occasion that Massad came into you know, CIA
headquarters in Washington.

Speaker 2 (19:16):
Do you know anything about that?

Speaker 3 (19:17):
Is that true? Whatsoever? And if so, like, what does
what does that mean for you?

Speaker 5 (19:21):
Yes, yes, that is true, meaning Israel is our ally.
I love Israel, but they spy on us, and it
is super annoying. So even though they're a ally, even
though we've given them a gazillion dollars, they still spy
on the United States in any chance they get. So
US is the US government. We do not spa on Israel.
We don't do that, obviously. We spy on a whole

(19:42):
excuse me, a whole host of other countries. But yes,
Israel's always trying to spy on us, always trying to
do in various things, which is again annoying because we're
allies and we're give the so much money and we
help them, but it's almost like the little brother that
can't help, but being annoying.

Speaker 4 (19:58):
So yeah, that that is true.

Speaker 5 (19:59):
But again going back to Israel and Charlie Kirker and
he that, no, that's not true.

Speaker 4 (20:03):
They got much bigger fish to fry.

Speaker 2 (20:05):
Yeah, for sure.

Speaker 3 (20:07):
So so we don't So we don't know for sure
if he acted alone as of right now. But if
you were tasked with kind of running this after action investigation,
what would be the things that you would be looking
at right now? As Cash betel or or whoever is
going to lead this investigation, Department of Justice, whoever it

(20:27):
is you know what what are what are the things
you're looking at?

Speaker 2 (20:30):
I mean right now?

Speaker 3 (20:31):
The story is this guy had his I guess grandfather's
gun that his father gave him, a thirty all six.
He went to the Utah Valley University campus. He was
walking with a limp, as you see on some of
the surveillance cameras as he's going down the road. Obviously
he is hiding this gun in his pants leg, which
is why he's limping, because you can't really extend your

(20:52):
knee when you're walking with a weapon. But the interesting
thing was is that when he jumped off of the building,
it looks like almost he didn't have a weapon. Now
he could have had it wrapped in a tower or whatever.
He did also obviously mentioned on text messages that hey,
I threw it in the woods. You know, I got
to figure out how to go back and get this
weapon because there's probably DNA on this which they did

(21:13):
announce today that there is DNA on the trigger. I
think they also had a palm print on the rifle also.
But do you believe the story? Is this just so
easy to do as someone that takes a gun goes
up on this campus shoots the person leaves. Is there
anything about the story so far that doesn't make sense.

Speaker 4 (21:32):
To you, Well, unfortunately, it is that easy.

Speaker 5 (21:35):
I mean, it's so this the shooter, where the shooter
lives about thirty minutes from my house. And so in
Utah we've got BLN Land Bureau of Land Management, and
that's just government land where you can go out shooting,
and you can go out and shoot however many hundreds
of yards you want, and I mean, it's it's all
over the west you can do that. And we're very
fortunate that we'll hall of all that land where we

(21:56):
can train, where we can go do target shooting and
have fun. So you know, the shot being two hundred yards,
that's not a difficult shot. That's not something where you've
got to be a trained sniper. If you've got some
good glass on your gun, you are gonna be very
in it zeroed correctly, you're gonna have no problem taking
that shot. And of course again you go out to
the Utah desert and take those shots and train all
day long. So you know, if there are sleeper cells

(22:19):
in this country, there's Iranian sleeper cells, many sleeper cells.
And I always saying one of the biggest things that
is going to cause problems is either the hundreds of
sleeper cell agents in this US from foreign intelligence foreign
countries that came in through the open border during Biden.
They're either going to set off suicide bombs simultaneously in
one hundred different cities, or they're gonna do snipers. You know,

(22:41):
they're gonna shoot people and use snipers in one hundred
different cities. That's how you really bring a country to
his knees. So doing this kind of stuff is not hard,
but it also goes to living in a free society. Obviously,
we have the Second Amendment. I'm a big support of
the Second Amendment. You pass your background check, you get
your gun. So it's not hard to get these rifles
or do anything. It's not hard to train. And people
are so self absorbed with their head and their cell phone,

(23:03):
they're not paying attention. So nobody's going to pick up
on a kid with a lamb. Nobody's gonna think twice.
So pulling this off is not some mastermind. Now you
asked me what I would do. What the you know
the government's probably doing right now. Well, they're obviously going
to know this kid better than knows himself. They're combing
through his digital life. They are looking at every search engine,
every diad, They're looking at every web page you visited.

(23:23):
They're going into his Amazon account. What did he order
an Amazon? What books did he order? What gun stores
did he visit? Where did he go shoot? Where did
he train? I mean, they're going to know everything about
this kid and pour over every detail of his digital life,
and of course continue to and continue to interview friends
and family.

Speaker 6 (23:42):
Now as you protect other people like VIPs and such.
Do you think Charlie Kirk was wearing a plate and
do you think it was possible that the bullet ricocheted
off that plate into his neck?

Speaker 5 (23:54):
From what I saw on what I know, No, it
was a straight shot. I mean there's no ricochet. There
was no you know from what I've heard. Again, I
don't know for sure. I have not investigated these facts.
I want to be clear about that that he was
wearing soft body armor and soft body armors level three eight.
That's only stopping pistol rounds. That's not going to stop
a rifle round. So you can be a police officer
wearing your soft body armor, but if somebody who's coming

(24:17):
at you with a three oh eight two two three
thirty odd to six or whatever. It ain't going to
help you. It's not going to stop it. So so yeah,
so yeah, long story short. No, I don't believe there
was any ricochet. That was just a unfortunately a shot
straight to the neck.

Speaker 3 (24:31):
So why did we not see like an exit wound,
especially with a thirty all six, which I guess what
is that?

Speaker 2 (24:36):
The is essentially a three oh eight correct, right?

Speaker 5 (24:39):
Yeah, yeah, I mean it's a very it's a powerful round.
I mean, so it's a hunting round, so it's obviously
plenty to take down any human being or game or
any of that kind of stuff. Uh so, yeah, it's
a solid hunting round. But why did we not see that?
I don't know that answer. I again, I don't I'd
have to be up close and personal and have more
facts than I do with this time.

Speaker 3 (25:00):
Yeah, it's just strange because that's one thing we have
not saw, is like an exit wound or something that
looked like it actually came out the back or whatever.
It looked like it kind of exploded right there on
his neck. And you know, if you look at like
a thirty out six bullet or if like I say,
you shoot a deer, I mean usually those entry wounds
and you can correct me if I'm wrong, are not
as big or as I guess gashing as what this

(25:24):
wound appeared to be.

Speaker 2 (25:25):
But I guess that could also different.

Speaker 7 (25:28):
Blood flow coming out of his body.

Speaker 2 (25:30):
But if it hit his carotid artery, right, I mean,
isn't that right?

Speaker 4 (25:33):
Yeah, it times in the location.

Speaker 5 (25:34):
Obviously that went right into his neck, so there's there's
plenty of blood there.

Speaker 4 (25:38):
So yeah, obviously.

Speaker 5 (25:39):
Bullet placement where you hit your target, that's why there
was so much blood.

Speaker 2 (25:44):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (25:45):
So with all of our intelligence, though, Jason, how did
we not pick up on some of this stuff? You know,
if you listen to podcasts like ours or Joe Rogan
or anybody. I don't know how much you want to
talk about this, but you know how much does our
intelligen just agencies really spy on us on an everyday basis?
And I'm talking about everything we do, whether it's listening

(26:07):
devices I could be going into weeds here, but even
your firestick remote or your telephone or you know, we
know that for example, you know, we were doing this
share of candidate race here in our county and so
we were hanging out with him and we were talking
about a specific product whatever that was, and he's like,
thanks to you, Now I'm getting all these ads on
my phone, you know, And this is all marketing. I'm

(26:29):
also in marketing. But how much does intelligence agencies really
monitor and surveil us? And if that is the case,
which obviously Edward Snowden kind of called out some of that,
But if that is a case, like how did they
and how do they not pick up chatter like this
on a platform like discord?

Speaker 2 (26:46):
If that is where this happened.

Speaker 5 (26:49):
Well, first, most people give wayay too much credit and
have way too much faith in the FBI.

Speaker 4 (26:55):
Local law enforcement.

Speaker 5 (26:56):
They don't realize how overwhelmed they are, how understaffed they are.
Going back to all the foreign intelligence officers that are
in this country right now that came through the border,
the FBI can't keep track of them. They can't keep
track of all these foreign spies. They don't have the manpower,
they're understaff they're under budget. So yes, we collect this data.
We have all this information when you bring your Alexa,
your Google Voice whatever, it's spying on you. But somebody

(27:18):
has to go through that data. And they don't have
enough people to comb through it. Of course there's AI
which helps with that stuff now. But just because you
have you know, a million trains let's just call it
transcripts for lack of a better word, is you still
have to read it. You still have to see and
we've got hundreds of millions of people in this country.
So it's a it's a nice, you know whatever dream

(27:39):
where people are like, yeah, the governments can read everything
I do. Well, they could if they wanted to, but
they have to have the time to go through it.
They have to be you know, going through that specific thing.
So that's the big problem is the FBI is woefully understaff.
That's how this type of stuff happens.

Speaker 3 (27:53):
Yeah, can can you tell us like in your in
your past and your history with CI was it something
that you guys ever knew that like the government was
using like surveillance tactics or did you ever know how
they got intelligence that they then passed on to you?

Speaker 2 (28:10):
Did you ever know the source of that intelligence?

Speaker 5 (28:12):
Well, I mean it depends what's going on. I mean,
you always protect your sources. Methods and sources are one
thing that you know, I can't share or go over.

Speaker 4 (28:20):
But if you ask me.

Speaker 5 (28:23):
Yeah, I gotta I gotta be careful how I phrase this, like,
you know, am I am?

Speaker 1 (28:26):
I do?

Speaker 4 (28:27):
I believe?

Speaker 5 (28:28):
You know, the US government is always spying on a citizens. Yes,
I believe that. So there's always ways to gather intelligence.
But you in the intelligence business, you're usually tasked with something.
I mean, you have a task. And I'm just making
this up, but hey, there's this there's this Russian scientist group.
We think they're inventing a dirty bomb. You need to
go find out who these Russian scientists are. You need

(28:49):
to find out why they're developing. That is a certain task. Yeah,
So unless you know what your tasking requirement is, well,
you know, there was probably no tasking requirement to hey
there's a death threat again, Charlie Kirk, look into it.
They've got so many other things going on that that
was not on the radar.

Speaker 3 (29:06):
Yeah, that makes sense. And I mean even to that question.
You know, and I've watched your videos. I you know,
we've we've had you on the podcast a couple of times,
and I think that you are for sure, just based
on me kind of knowing who you are, I think
you are pro freedom. I think that's something that you
always talk about on your YouTube channel, which, by the way,

(29:26):
guess go and subscribe to Jason Hanson the YouTube channel.
What is the actual title of your YouTube channel?

Speaker 5 (29:31):
By the way, Jason, I think if they just do
Jason Hanson's CIA, my YouTube channelill pop up.

Speaker 4 (29:37):
That's probably the easiest way to get to it.

Speaker 3 (29:38):
Okay, But I know that a lot of times, like
a lot of your videos are for the public, for
the people, right And and I guess my question to
this is is that you know, how do like, at
what point do we surveil people too much?

Speaker 8 (29:54):
Right?

Speaker 3 (29:54):
I remember when Trump got in office, he had Larry
Ellison with Oracle, he had Sam Altman with open AI.
If we look at the state of China and their
mass surveillance, right, and we know that China has this
mass surveillance, this kind of digital ID system that they have,
or a social credit score. And then so one of

(30:16):
the first huge press conferences Trump had, which I am
a trump'pporter, Sherries a Trump supporter. We have voted for Trump.
But one of the things I saw in that press
conference was Larry Elson. Obviously Oracle, which is a huge
software company that many people believe was tied to the CIA,
and kind of the CI, you know, utilized Oracle and
Larry Ellison was a big part of that.

Speaker 2 (30:36):
But at what point does it become too far?

Speaker 3 (30:39):
Because obviously Trump's out here saying, hey, we got five
hundred billion dollar investment for this and five billion dollar
investment of this. Then you think about Pollenteer, which is
a system as we were talking about, like how can
you survel everybody? Someone has to go through that unless
you then have a software like Pallenteer so where it
can then coordinate and bring everything into one place and
then utilize AI very heavily, categorically put things into certain

(31:04):
boxes to where hey, here's what you need to look
at the most, here's what you don't need to look
at the most. But at what point in time does
that go against us rather than for us?

Speaker 4 (31:13):
I mean we're already there.

Speaker 5 (31:14):
I mean obviously, surveillance is only to get a gazillion
times worse over the years. I mean, look how fast
we found this shooter because of all the surveillance cameras,
because of everything we do. So I personally don't have
an Alexa, I don't have any smart devices inside my phone,
that can listen to anything like that. But yeah, we're
one hundred percent in there. Anything they want to know
about you they have. Now it's the government and corporations

(31:37):
working together because corporations, obviously you want to make money,
they want to sell your data. Well, guess who buys
that data the US government. Now is US government always
buying it through the Department of Homeland Security or whatever. No,
a lot of times they're buying it through shell corporations.
So it looks like just John Doe LLC is buying
this data from Oracle or Facebook or Google whomever the

(32:00):
US government getting it. So the Israelis have this, and
I say wonderful for spying purposes, not wonderful for privacy purposes.
Where the software they can hack all your cell phones,
they could read everything. Well, Ice is one of the
customers of this software the Israelis made where they can
hack any cell phone. So I always tell people, if
you think any phone you have is safe from hacking,

(32:21):
you are out of your mind. Like when I still
do some well a lot of private consulting where I
have meeting some person very sensitive topics, and I leave
my cell phone at home or I leave it in
the hotel room. I don't even bring it to the meeting.
There's no electronics there because any cell phone can be hacked.
So I think people need to realize that is we're
way way past that. And if you have anything you
really don't want to know, you better not have any

(32:43):
electronic devices around you when you talk.

Speaker 3 (32:45):
Yeah, And I want to get to this real quick,
you know, to that point. And I'm not saying this
the case, I promise you. I'm not saying this is
the case. But say, for example, do you remember the
guy that blew himself up? I think he was in
a Tesla cyber truck in Las Vega. I guess you
remember this guy that I do. Yes, So he had
this manifesto and it was kind of weird because it

(33:06):
wasn't long or after his death that his I think
it was his Telegram account was logged into. So someone
else logged into his telegram account.

Speaker 2 (33:16):
Just tell me this.

Speaker 3 (33:17):
If CIA wanted to log into a device and say
they wanted to frame someone, right, just just say that,
like there was some type of operation and they wanted
to frame someone. And I'm not saying that Tyler Robinson
has framed because I think this guy is the right guy.
I will say that on record, but I'm just saying

(33:37):
in other cases, if CIA or MASAD wanted to frame
someone and so that say, for example, what we have
your text here, we have what you said to this person.

Speaker 2 (33:48):
On the day that you committed this crime.

Speaker 3 (33:51):
Like, how easy would it be for CIA or MASAD
or some other intelligence agency to log into these to
whoever they're pass he is, just say, for example, and
communicate with maybe their girlfriend or boyfriend or family member
to say that, hey, I did this crime and this
is what happened and blah blah blah.

Speaker 2 (34:12):
How easy would that be?

Speaker 5 (34:13):
Do you think it would be scarily easy? So if
somebody wanted to I A. If a government organization wanted
to frame somebody wanted to hack into their devices, yes
it could be done. So of course we're speaking hypothetically,
but yeah, it's not hard. I mean, if the government
targeted you and said, hey, Chad, we want to make
it look like you're a a you know whatever, it is,

(34:35):
a terrorist or whatever, they could easily plan those messages.
They could they could hack in your accounts, So yeah,
that would not be difficult at all with the technology
the government has today.

Speaker 2 (34:43):
Yeah, all right.

Speaker 3 (34:44):
Next question, you had mentioned Massad again, How is Masad
so intelligent? I guess you can say, right, because we
we had a guy on our show probably about a
year and a half ago. He is within the Department
Homeland Security. He's not now, he actually retired now. But
one of the things that he he had told us
was just his interactions with Massad and all this stuff
and like and how advanced in their intelligence that Masad is.

(35:08):
And so you heard about the pager incident with a
mas to where they intercepted this pager deal and they
blew up all these pagers.

Speaker 2 (35:15):
Like how are they so good? Is the question? I mean,
you know it.

Speaker 3 (35:19):
And most people think, like if the United States wasn't
fully supporting Israel in the way that we have to
support Israel, Israel would not They would.

Speaker 2 (35:28):
Basically cease to exist. Do you feel that way?

Speaker 3 (35:31):
Like if the United States say that the United States
got taken out tomorrow, what happens with Israel tomorrow?

Speaker 5 (35:39):
Israel continues that Israel's fine. Here's why they have motivation
that many countries don't include the US. So they are
surrounded by people who hate them. They're surrounded by people
who want to blow them up, and they are fighting
for their religious beliefs. So there are many intelligence agencies
around this world who are amazing, and Israel's one of them.
So when I'm teaching my classes, I tell people, I say,

(36:01):
you know why North Korean intelligence operatives are so good
because if they screw up, they get put to death.
You know what happens if an intelligence officer or the
US government screws up. Well, the joke is, they get
a promotion. So when somebody is going.

Speaker 4 (36:15):
To kill you.

Speaker 5 (36:17):
If you screw up, you're pretty motivated to do the job.
If you are fighting for your livelihood and your religion,
you are pretty motivated to do the job. Plus, the
Israelis have a latitude that we in the US government
and me I obviously don't work in the US government anymore,
but the US government doesn't have, So they are able
to be much more savage, much more ruthless, cross lines

(36:38):
that we would not morally cross in the United States.

Speaker 3 (36:41):
Yeah, and see that's the thing with Israel. It's like
even with the October seventh thing, obviously we knew October
seventh happened.

Speaker 2 (36:47):
We're not getting too far off the weeds.

Speaker 3 (36:48):
But October seventh happened, but like the response is like
not the greatest public relations campaign for Israel, and I
think that's what's led and turned a lot of people
away from that. But you know, I guess the big
thing is, especially with the Charlie Kirk thing, everybody went
to blame Israel. And this is one of the things.
Like you can debate on the response to Israel and Gaza,

(37:09):
you can debate a lot of things, but the problem
is is that when we start blaming Israel for everything,
which there are definitely influencers doing right now all over
social media, and I'm talking about some of these people
are huge accounts. I think at discredits, Like, if you
do actually have an issue with Israel about something they
have done, do you not think that this credits everything

(37:30):
that you've been you know, if you actually have a
valid argument against Israel or against the way they responded,
or maybe even against their influence in American politics. I mean,
do you think that Israel has a huge influence on
American politics, especially in light of like APEC for example.

Speaker 4 (37:50):
I mean, I think they do have an influence.

Speaker 5 (37:51):
But I think the reason I love Israel and so
great is they don't give a crap.

Speaker 4 (37:55):
So they don't care what others think. They take care
of business.

Speaker 5 (37:59):
Where hear the UI, we still have politics, we still
worry about PC stuff way too much and all that
kind of stuff. But you know, Israel isn't worried about
being PC. They're not worried about the world loving them.
They said, hey, this happened, this was done to us.
Our people are murdered. We're going to take care of
business and we're going to be ruthless and savage about it.
And I like that because they move fast, they're efficient,

(38:21):
and they don't have as much bureaucracy that slows them
down as we do, as we hear have here in
the US.

Speaker 3 (38:25):
Yeah, all right, Next question I have is we think,
you know, what is your religion?

Speaker 2 (38:32):
By the way, do you believe in God and all
that stuff?

Speaker 5 (38:34):
Is that kind of your real lif I do. I'm
a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
day Saints.

Speaker 2 (38:37):
Okay, I got you. Okay.

Speaker 3 (38:39):
So with that being said, when you think about you know,
we've talked also a lot about the New World Order, right,
so this advancement of this one world government sounds like
a huge conspiracy theory, which is literally we've always talked
about the New World Order as being this huge conspiracy.
I mean, Christianity and all this has talked about this.
The Bible talks about this for throughout many verses. This

(39:01):
one world government, this this mark of the beast, which
you know, if you talk about social credit scores and
all this, maybe that's what we're going towards.

Speaker 2 (39:09):
But how how real do you think it is?

Speaker 3 (39:11):
I mean, especially from an intelligence officer perspective, how real
do you think it is that there are organizations or
groups out there in the world that are trying to
completely destroy the sovereignty of nations for their benefit?

Speaker 5 (39:29):
A hundred percent absolutely true. I mean, as a Christian,
we know that before the Second Coming, life's going to
get much much worse. The world is going to get,
you know, not getting any better. Society is going to
go more in the dumps and dumps as we are witnessing.
I mean, we just look at all the crazy stuff,
the transgender stuff, the like, you know, thinking that a
boy should be able to use a girl's bathroom, I mean,

(39:50):
the the absolute insanity. So we know that Satan is
behind these organizations. He wants as I said earlier, good
to be evil and evil to be good. So socialism
and communism are the perfect example. Is they want to
make it seem great, they want to make it seem wonderful.
So yes, they would love to overall because socialism always
leads to communism. How they communist state where they control everybody.

(40:14):
And there are all these people who have not studied history,
who are not very intelligent, who are saying, oh yeah again,
I'm only a democratic socialist. So yes, there are one
hundred percent groups working to overthrow freedom, which is why
our Constitution was inspired by God, which is why our
Bill of Rights was inspired by God and is so
important because that's what keeps us free.

Speaker 3 (40:34):
Yeah. Absolutely, Can I play this clip real quick? I
want to play this. This is what the shooter was
communicating with his boyfriend, which I guess was I guess
trying to transition into a female.

Speaker 2 (40:50):
But I do want to play this.

Speaker 3 (40:51):
There are a couple of things here that I want
to ask you about, and so that's what I want
to talk about this. But listen here real quick and
we'll can Being on.

Speaker 9 (41:00):
The backside, the roommate.

Speaker 10 (41:05):
Police interviewed Robinson's roommate, a biological male who was involved
in a romantic relationship with Robinson. The roommate told police
that the roommate received messages from Robinson about the shooting,
and he did provide those messages to police. On September tenth,

(41:27):
twenty twenty five, the roommate received a text message from
Robinson which said, drop what you're doing. Look under my keyboard.
The roommate looked under the keyboard and found a note
that stated quote, I had the opportunity to take out
Charlie Kirk, and I'm going to take it. Police found

(41:48):
a photograph of this note. The following exchange text exchange
then took place. After reading the note, the roommate responded,
what you're joking, right, Robinson? I am still okay, my love,
but am stuck in Orum for a little while longer

(42:09):
yet shouldn't be long until I can come home.

Speaker 9 (42:12):
But I got to grab my rifle still.

Speaker 10 (42:16):
To be honest, I had hoped to keep this secret
till I died of old age. I am sorry to
involve you, roommate. You weren't the one who did it,
right Robinson, I am, I am. I'm sorry, roommate. I
thought they caught the person Robinson. No, they grabbed some

(42:36):
crazy old dude, then interrogated someone in similar clothing. I
had planned to grab my rifle from my drop point
shortly after, but most of that side of town got
locked down. It's quiet, almost enough to get out, but
there's one vehicle lingering.

Speaker 9 (42:54):
Roommate. Why Robinson? Why did I do it?

Speaker 10 (42:59):
Roommate, Yeah, Robinson, I had enough of his hatred. Some
hate can't be negotiated out. If I am able to
grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence.
Going to attempt to retrieve it again. Hopefully they have
moved on. I haven't seen anything about them finding it. Roommate,

(43:24):
how long have you been planning this, Robinson? A bit
over a week. I believe I can get close to it,
but there is a squad car parked right by it.
I think they already swept that spot, but I don't
want to chance it. Robinson Again, I'm wishing I had
circled back and grabbed it as soon as I got

(43:44):
to my vehicle. I'm worried what my old man would
do if I didn't bring back Grandpa's rifle. Ide k
if it's had a serial number, but it wouldn't trace
to me.

Speaker 9 (43:58):
I worry about Prince.

Speaker 10 (43:59):
I had to leave it in a bush where I
changed outfits, didn't have the ability or time to bring
it with I might have to abandon it and hope
they don't find prints. How the F will I explain
losing it to my old man? Only thing I left
was the wrapple. Was the rifle wrapped in a towel.

(44:21):
Remember how I was engraving bullets. The fin messages are
mostly a big meme. If I see notice bulge UWU
on Fox New, I might have a stroke. All right,
I'm gonna have to leave it. That really FN sucks.
Judging from today, I'd say Grandpa's gone does just fine?

(44:45):
IDK I think that was a two k dollar scope?

Speaker 9 (44:53):
Wink wink Robinson.

Speaker 10 (44:58):
Robinson again det this exchange again Robinson. My dad wants
photos of the rifle, he says, Grandpa wants to know
who has what. The Fed's released a photo of the
rifle and it is very unique. He's calling me rn
not answering Robinson. Since Trump got into office, my dad

(45:20):
has been pretty diehard. Maga Robinson. I'm going to turn
myself in willingly. One of my neighbors here is a
deputy for the sheriff again. You are all I worry
about love that came from robinson roommate. I'm much more
worried about you.

Speaker 9 (45:41):
Robinson. Don't talk to the media.

Speaker 10 (45:43):
Please, don't take any interviews or make any comments. If
any police ask you questions, ask for a lawyer, and
stay silent.

Speaker 2 (45:54):
All right, So there you go, Jason.

Speaker 3 (45:55):
What I got to ask you about this is first
sounds like this guy was basically admitting this. He was
bragging about a two thousand dollars scope, He talked about
Grandpa's rifle, the old man, all this stuff. I have
to ask you, though, because there's gonna be people listening
to this podcast they're like, oh my god, but that's
probably someone that was like texting for him. Have you

(46:18):
ever experienced anything or any operation, or ever heard of
any operation that could possibly manipulate something so hardcore, even
down to text messages to someone that implicated them as
a useful idiot?

Speaker 4 (46:35):
As I said earlier, could it be done? Absolutely?

Speaker 5 (46:37):
Is the technology out there to be able to do it?

Speaker 4 (46:39):
Yes? But do I think that's what happened?

Speaker 9 (46:42):
No?

Speaker 5 (46:42):
I mean, when people do things like this, they want
to brag, they want to tell their loved ones. This case,
it was his boyfriend, and people can't keep their mouth shut.
So this made national news. He wanted to let you know,
his loved one know that he was the one who
did it.

Speaker 4 (46:56):
Kind of thing.

Speaker 5 (46:57):
So, any kind of conspiracy where the government was behind
this and they're doing it, yes, they have the technology. No,
I don't think they do it. This was just like
most criminals who can't keep their mouth shut.

Speaker 3 (47:07):
Yeah, and you had mentioned the glass earlier. He bragged
about the scope. Two thousand dollars scope that obviously means
a lot in shooting, if you're going to try to
shoot someone and kill them, right, Oh.

Speaker 4 (47:17):
Yeah, absolutely.

Speaker 5 (47:18):
I mean, if you are buying a decent scope, it's
going to cost more than the gun. So I doubt
Grandpa's old gun costs two thousand dollars.

Speaker 4 (47:25):
But that is the joke.

Speaker 5 (47:26):
As you know, you might you might go buy a
I'm just making this up, a fifteen hundred dollars ar fifteen,
but now you're buying a two thousand dollars scope to
go on it.

Speaker 4 (47:33):
So yeah, it's very.

Speaker 5 (47:34):
Common that whatever optics you're buying are going to be
more expensive than the firearm.

Speaker 3 (47:39):
Yeah, and then the engraving and bullets thing. We go
back to Luigi Mangione. You know, he was the killer
of the United Healthcare CEO, and I don't know if
you remember the videos and everything we saw on mainstream
media that kind of they did the purplalk. This was
in New York City when he landed in a helicopter.
They had him in this orange jump shoot or jumpsuit, shackled, chained,

(48:05):
you name it.

Speaker 2 (48:06):
And there was a lot of people.

Speaker 3 (48:07):
Even then that said, man, this looks like some kind
of movie like The Joker or something.

Speaker 2 (48:12):
To where they're walking this guy down.

Speaker 3 (48:14):
He is almost like, although a lot of normal people
will look at this person as a killer, as someone's
very evil, but there are also going to be people
that are incited by this. They look at this figure
and even with the Minnesota shooting it just recently happened,
you know, the engravings on all of his rifles, the
bullets and all this stuff, and then you have this

(48:36):
guy also engraving bullets. Is like, how do you stop
that and also maintain freedom of speech? But also how
much is mainstream media implicated in this to this degree?

Speaker 5 (48:49):
Well, I mean, these crazy people do crazy things. They
want to be famous. They engrave their bullets so that
they can read it and they get their message across,
and they think it's going to influence the world, it's
going to change things. But of course we're dealing with
appsol insane mad men. So how do we stop it
with freedma of speech. I mean, it's not going to stop.
It goes to the very, very horrible saying of we

(49:09):
have the Second Amendment. Guns can be used to do
horrible things, as we've seen in the Charlie kirkshooting, but
you can't take away the Second Amendment. Same thing with
freedom of speech. People say horrific things online, racist, horrible things,
but you can't take.

Speaker 4 (49:22):
Away freedom of speech. So, you know, just kind of
a weird tangent.

Speaker 5 (49:27):
But China has more foreign spies in the US and
the other country on Earth. Right, Chinese our biggest threat
when it comes to our safety and security democracy, and
they have more spies in universities than any foreign government.
But that goes to with our freedoms in this country,
people being able to.

Speaker 4 (49:45):
Come over here.

Speaker 5 (49:46):
So when you have a free country, when you have
all the rights we have, it is easier to infiltrate.
And that is one of the again, the good, the bad,
and the ugly that we have to deal with as
a nation with our freedoms.

Speaker 2 (49:57):
Yeah, and that makes me think about that too.

Speaker 3 (49:59):
Is like, I think Trump is about to let in
six thousand Chinese students, right, I think it's six thousand.
I mean, how many of those students do you think
that the Chinese government will make sure are spies?

Speaker 2 (50:11):
And why would Trump do that? It just doesn't make
sense to me.

Speaker 4 (50:14):
Why would he do that? I have no idea.

Speaker 5 (50:16):
I mean money, they promised him an investment or whatever,
but how many are spies as many as China wants
to be. What people don't realize is we live in
a free society. If you are going over to China
or any nation and you're going to school and the
FBI comes to you and says or the CIA says, hey,
we want you to spy for us. As American citizens,
you can give him the middle finger and say no thanks, audios.

(50:37):
But if the Chinese government comes to you it says, hey,
I see you're going over to Johns Hopkins and you're
going to be a doctor. We want you to spy
for us, they cannot say no. So that's what people
don't get. That's why there are so many Chinese spies
in every university. And the big thing that China does
well that we us, the United States, do not well
is we have no patience in the US, meaning if

(50:58):
somebody joins the CIA, we.

Speaker 4 (50:59):
Say, hey, what did you do for me yesterday? We
want results yesterday.

Speaker 5 (51:02):
But China is willing to put somebody in a university
here when they're eighteen years old, and they're willing to
wait twenty years until they're in the CIA, in the FBI,
in Google, Amazon, Facebook, and then they can produce a intelligence.
So China is very good at playing the long game.

Speaker 2 (51:17):
We've talked a lot about Charlie Kirk.

Speaker 3 (51:19):
I do have a question because I man RP would
hate us if we didn't.

Speaker 2 (51:23):
Ask you this.

Speaker 3 (51:24):
CIA and deep states. How connected are those two terms.

Speaker 5 (51:29):
Connected? But it is absolutely not what people think.

Speaker 4 (51:33):
The deep state.

Speaker 5 (51:33):
Let's say Biden at the time. The deep state is
not Biden. The deep state is a middle manager who's
with the CIA, the FBI Secret Service for thirty years.
So we got to remember when a president gets elected,
they're only around for four.

Speaker 4 (51:47):
Years, eight years.

Speaker 5 (51:48):
Whatever the deep state is entrenched, it is that middle
manager who cannot get fired from the government, who causes
problems for the next thirty years, and that is what
the true deep state is. So everybody wants to have
a conspira theory again, it's this you know, the presidents
and he's pulling the strings.

Speaker 4 (52:06):
He's a pup master.

Speaker 5 (52:07):
No, it's all these deadbeat middle managers who aren't going anywhere,
who can cause problems and slow things down for the
next thirty years of their tenure.

Speaker 3 (52:15):
Yeah, so you're saying, you know, you as ci officer,
not deep state, but there's someone kind of in between that.
And how if we have all of this intelligence, how
do we allow that in America today? Like how does
it seem like that? You know, look at the UK,
for example, Kyle Starmer and the mass immigration over there

(52:35):
to where it's like people are getting thirty people a
day are getting arrested for what they're saying about the immigration,
the mass immigration, the Sharia law, all these things. They're
being arrested for this. And then you have Pam Bondi
today coming out and saying, based on the Charlie Kirk
assassination that we have to create some type of hate
speech laws. This literally goes almost exactly to what the

(52:56):
UK government did about immigration. And to me, it doesn't
really matter like who you're going after, because you're not
going like you just said, you're not going to be
there forever. And the same thing with Oracle, with Pallunteer,
with these companies that are making mass investments in the
United States, Trump's not going to be there forever. Whether
you think that Trump is going to masterbeil people and
create this surveillance state, he may not be the one

(53:18):
to do it, but he is potentially setting up the
ground game for this mass surveillance state for whoever eventually
long term takes over.

Speaker 2 (53:28):
How how do you figure all that out?

Speaker 3 (53:30):
I mean, you know, like from an intelligence perspective, what
is the right thing to do?

Speaker 5 (53:36):
Well, I'm a person who's one hundred percent for freedom
of speech.

Speaker 4 (53:39):
I don't believe that, you know, there should.

Speaker 5 (53:40):
Be any anything that's going to horror our freedom of speech.
You know, Elon Musk talks about how he's one hundred
percent no matter what pro free speech. That's how I
am too, And so I think the big thing is
and you ask, you know, how.

Speaker 4 (53:56):
Do these people get away with a deep state?

Speaker 5 (53:58):
It's because of they're they're the people in charge are
afraid of him, meaning this person is gay. Oh, we
don't want to fire him because they're going to claim
we fired him because they're.

Speaker 4 (54:07):
Gay, or this person is a certain race.

Speaker 5 (54:09):
We don't want to fire him because they're gonna say
it's because they're a certain their skin color is certain things.
So that is the that is the big, big fear
is just still I know, you know, Trump's in office again.
I voted for him. I'm glad, but we're still way
too politically correct in this country. And they'll say, oh, shoot,
that woman's a lesbian. We can't touch her. We're not
gonna we're not gonna reprimand her at all. And these

(54:30):
people know that. Without going into too many details, I
have come across this where somebody said, well, hey, you know,
i'm a i'm a woman, i'm a lesbian, i'm black,
you can't touch me kind of type of thing.

Speaker 4 (54:42):
So they they.

Speaker 5 (54:43):
Know that, and people that's but you know, whenever I
say something that they're like, oh my gosh, you're racis no. No, no,
I mentioned their gender, I mentioned their sexuality.

Speaker 4 (54:52):
I mentioned the race.

Speaker 5 (54:52):
Because they have literally said they know That's how they're untouchable.

Speaker 2 (54:56):
Yeah, and and and the other.

Speaker 3 (54:59):
The other thing I want to ask, I mean, as
a CI officer former anyways, was there anything when you
got into the agency that you maybe didn't realize or
was there things that you were like, damn, maybe some
of the conspiracy theories theories are right.

Speaker 2 (55:17):
I mean, what did you think about that?

Speaker 3 (55:18):
Because, I mean, so many people do not trust our government,
They do not trust our CIA, they do not trust FBI.
It goes through terms like I said, the Biden, FBI,
the spying on Trump, all of this stuff. It changes
ever so often. But you know, CI correct me if
I'm wrong. Aren't they supposed to do everything internationally? So
they're not really supposed to do stuff in the United

(55:40):
States of America. That's kind of FBI job correct?

Speaker 4 (55:44):
One hundred percent correct.

Speaker 5 (55:45):
Yeah, The FBI is all US is all domestic, the
CIA is all international. And you know what I believe
is ninety nine percent of CI officers, FBI agents, they
are good.

Speaker 4 (55:55):
They're good people.

Speaker 5 (55:56):
There's always going to be that one percent who are corrupt,
and that is the problem is we just got to
root out that one percent.

Speaker 4 (56:02):
But I've worked with.

Speaker 5 (56:03):
So many amazing men and women and had so many
great mentors who taught me a lot.

Speaker 4 (56:08):
So I have faith in America still. I have faith
because there are those people who are.

Speaker 5 (56:12):
Fighting for us, who are putting their lives on the
line every day at intelligence agencies, military and all that.
I just think we need to crack down, not be
afraid of weeding out the one percent. And that's what
we're not doing a good job at.

Speaker 3 (56:24):
So you don't think and kind of one of the
last questions I want to ask you, know, I want
you to break this down. The problem is like when
we look at Russia, we look at Iran, we look
at all of these other nations that you know. Typically
growing up, I've always thought these are our enemies China, Russia,
North Korea, whoever.

Speaker 2 (56:44):
But it seems like a lot.

Speaker 3 (56:45):
Of people have kind of shifted their potential enemies to
our own government to some degree. Whether it is that
our intelligence agencies are more so after us and our
thoughts and our beliefs rather than they are after foreign
agents or belie I'm not saying that CIA is not

(57:06):
out there doing their job across across the world, but
I'm just saying a lot of people believe that CIA,
FBI are also working against their own people.

Speaker 2 (57:16):
What do you say about that?

Speaker 5 (57:18):
I think it's more conspiracy stuff again going back to
ninety nine percent. Sure there's the one percent to do
bad things, but mostly they are dealing with what they're
supposed to be dealing with. So I don't I mean,
it's just a good narrative. I mean, how do you
how do you bring down a nation? You have it divided?
We all know that. That's why Russia and Iran and
China and all them. Then they have you know, nerds

(57:41):
sitting behind a computer who are saying, hey, you know,
let's kill Charlie Kirk, Let's kill this person, Let's kill
this person, because they want to stir up hatred in
this country. They want to brainwash people to do things.
So I don't think the massive majority are doing it.
I don't worry. I mean, yes, I worry about it,
so beeachers, But I don't think it's our biggest concern.
The biggest conservatives, all the foreign adversaries who know how

(58:05):
politically chargedway our as a nation, deciding to divide us.

Speaker 4 (58:08):
So it goes back to you know that hot shick.

Speaker 5 (58:11):
You think you're talking to an on the Internet is
probably an Iranian terrorist who's trying to convince you to
go do something horrible in your local city.

Speaker 9 (58:18):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (58:19):
Yeah, because there are definitely people that are ideologically based
in what they believe and they're going to go out
and do these things. But they're not just people that
wake up one day and decide they're going to go
kill Charlie Kirk. I mean this is a type of
movement or maybe even an intelligence operation.

Speaker 4 (58:38):
Correct. It's grooming.

Speaker 5 (58:40):
So we know how those horrib well sex traffickers groom
young women, we know all that stuff. Well, it's the
same exact playbook when you're trying to groom somebody to
do what this young man just did. So you find
the vulnerable, you go to all the forms. And if
somebody says, and I'm just I'm obviously very conservative, I'm
a Republican. But if somebody said, hey, you know you
need to go start grooming a dumb liberal to do

(59:03):
something horrible, well, I'm going to find out where all
the liberals hang out, right, I'm going to go to
all the chat forums. I'm going to start, you know,
get to know them better. An intelligence operation is obviously
surveillance and know your target better than they know themselves.
And then you know how they talk, they speak, you know,
where they hang out, you know, like the local meeting groups.
So then you go there, you start influencing them, and yes,

(59:23):
it's espionage one oh one.

Speaker 2 (59:25):
Yeah for sure.

Speaker 6 (59:26):
And I want to ask a question as far as
the college campus university police, what could they have done
better to prevent this situation?

Speaker 7 (59:35):
Is there anything they could have done?

Speaker 5 (59:37):
No, because it goes back to being understaffed and undertrained.
I mean, this is local college campus police. They are
not the you know, they're not the Swant team. They're
not highly trained FBI or CIA officers. So their job
is crowd control. Their job is just making sure fights
don't break out. They're not sitting on rooftops with the
binoculars scanning around just because they've got so many other

(01:00:01):
things to worry about. They got to worry about. Hey,
there's a drunk, you know, and a fight in a
dorm room. We need to go bust that up. So
unless you are going to give these local colleges a
much bigger budget than you know, no local polices can
be able to stop this type of thing.

Speaker 3 (01:00:16):
Yeah, all right, last question, Jason, I know you got
to go what do people need to do? And we've
asked this on other podcasts with you before, but how
do we need to take our security?

Speaker 2 (01:00:27):
Sincerely?

Speaker 3 (01:00:27):
What do we need to be doing as people and
especially podcasters or people that are out there speaking out?
You know, what are conservative influencers going to do if
they want to continue Charlie's legacy? How do you do
it safely? Or do you just risk that? Is that
something that you just have to risk?

Speaker 4 (01:00:47):
Well?

Speaker 5 (01:00:48):
All it goes back to trading convenience and security, that
fine spectrum.

Speaker 9 (01:00:53):
Right.

Speaker 5 (01:00:53):
So the fact that hey, I'm going to get in
a car with a stranger called Uber, I'm going to
go stay in a stranger's house where they could have
the house bug called Airbnb? So how do they do it?
As First, you got to take threats more seriously. I
get a couple of death threats a year from weirdos,
and I take them seriously, even though it's a pain
in the bud to investigate the threat. It takes time,
and of course the vast majority of threats are just

(01:01:14):
wackos who are who are spewing harmless hate. Is I
think that needs to be done. I think the problem
is we all get desensitized. So I'll just use a
round number. If you've got one hundred death threats a year,
you get a hundred death threats a year like, ah,
you know not, and you investigate him over the years,
never had one, never had one? Will you become desensitized
to think, God, it's just it's just the local nut
job again, no big deal. So I don't think you

(01:01:36):
can ever allow yourself to become undesensitized. Whoever the word
I'm looking for there is. For instance, like anytime I
leave my office to go home, I do what's called
a surveillance detection route. Was just a fancy way of
saying I'm not I'm making sure I'm not being followed home.
So I do that every single night before I go home.
I never let my guard down because the one time

(01:01:57):
if I'm lazy, well, that could bring the boogeyman back
to my house where my wife and seven kids are.

Speaker 2 (01:02:02):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (01:02:03):
So I think it's just being vigilant at all times
and not being lazy, which I admit is not easy
to do.

Speaker 3 (01:02:08):
Yeah, for sure. Yeah, it's a scary time to be alive,
for sure. And you know, even with our podcast episodes
on Charlie Kirk. They've got millions of downloads, and you
know something for us, it's like, you know, are we
going to stop what we're doing? Absolutely not, because I
think if we take anything from Charlie Kirk's assassination, his death,

(01:02:29):
his murder, is that we can't stop doing what Charlie
did bravely. You know, he went out there in front
of people. There was a lot of people said, you know,
when I heard that Charlie Kirk was shot, I thought
that it was someone that came up to the microphone
and shot him right there, right in front of him.
I'd never thought that it would be someone on a

(01:02:51):
rooftop kind of very similar to Donald Trump's attempted assassination.

Speaker 6 (01:02:56):
But why can't they use like AI software where they
can detect guns and stuff, you know from the video
that we saw, Why could they not detect that at
a time.

Speaker 5 (01:03:07):
It's not good enough yet. I mean, they're obviously working
on that type of software, but AI is still in infancy,
and there's nothing good enough that can you know, not have.

Speaker 4 (01:03:16):
A bunch of false positives and all that type.

Speaker 2 (01:03:18):
Yeah, for sure.

Speaker 3 (01:03:19):
All right, well, Jason, listen, thank you so much for
coming on we appreciate your insight to this. So there's
so many more questions we could ask you. There are
so many more things that even with the Thomas Crooks
tempted assassination on Donald Trump, which doesn't make any sense,
we could talk about maybe we bring you back on
for that, because.

Speaker 2 (01:03:37):
We went heavily into that. A lot of that doesn't
make sense.

Speaker 3 (01:03:40):
But Jason, can you just give everybody like what you're
doing right now?

Speaker 2 (01:03:44):
You have the spy School.

Speaker 3 (01:03:46):
If people do want to protect themselves or groups or organizations,
what can they do? How can they find you? And
and I'm glad you're doing that, by the way, because
I think if at any time in our lifetime we
need something like spy school what you're doing, and I
think we need it now.

Speaker 5 (01:04:02):
Yeah, I'm doing a ton of training on our three
hundred and twenty ecre spy ranch and people can either
go to Tactical Spy School dot com or Spybriefing dot
com and either way they can find training. And I'm
happy to help in any way I can.

Speaker 3 (01:04:15):
Awesome, Well, thank you so much for Jason Hanson for
coming on the show. Jason thinks we'll definitely have you
back on very very soon, guys. That is Jason Hanson.
I'm glad we had Jason on. I really am. I
want to go ahead and say this. The reason why
I asked Jason questions about Israel is because there are
certain people online that are talking about this is all Israel,

(01:04:38):
this is this is Candie Owans, Ian Carroll, many others.
And I actually spent about an hour and a half
last night at three in the morning listening back to
Nick Fuintes's video, and he did a really good job
because obviously he has investigated this whole thing, what Candice
Owans is proclaiming, what Ian Carroll's talking about, He's done this.

Speaker 2 (01:05:04):
Someone like Nick Fontez that is heavily.

Speaker 6 (01:05:07):
Yeah, he would be the one saying, yes, Israel did
this because he does not like Israel.

Speaker 3 (01:05:14):
No, let's just be honest, No, he doesn't. I mean
for some valid reasons for sure. And he's just like,
I don't think this happened, guys. And there were people
in his chat by the way, last night that said,
I can't believe you're saying this. I cannot believe that
you were saying that this is not Israel. And this
is a mindset that we have to get out of there. Yes,

(01:05:34):
it's not always Israel. There are definitely things that Israel
has done that I don't agree with. First, sure, there
is apak, there is the political influence, There is a
lot of those things that I do not agree with.
But also at the same time, you can't just be like, well,
everything that happens is Israel. That's the boy that cries wolf.

Speaker 2 (01:05:53):
That's when.

Speaker 3 (01:05:54):
And by the way, if you are against a lot
of the stuff that Israel has done, then the one
thing you shouldn't do is blame everything on Israel without
any validation for that whatsoever, because that makes you look
like a liar, It makes you look like an idiot.
And then if something actually does happen that Israel is
implicated in, no one's gonna believe you after that. And

(01:06:16):
there are already people that are heavily going after people
like cand of Soans right now, like like Ian Carol,
like all these.

Speaker 2 (01:06:22):
People, and they're making them look like idiots.

Speaker 3 (01:06:26):
And that's really like if your movement right now, because
there are people that have a movement against Israel and
against their response to.

Speaker 6 (01:06:34):
The Dusty Owens is going against Israel because of the
Ben Shapiro conflict.

Speaker 3 (01:06:41):
I don't know, maybe I mean possibly, Like you know,
if I'm Candi Soans and I was at the Daily
Wire and I started saying that Christ is King and
then got terminated because of that, and my religion is
Christianity and Jesus, I'm probably definitely going to come out
hardcore again, you know, especially as an organization like the

(01:07:04):
Daily Wire. And you know, if you think about this,
take with Charlie Kirk, for example, where Candee so Wins
the other day she had this live stream I think
it was yesterday, where she talked about this meeting, this
huge meeting.

Speaker 2 (01:07:20):
That Charlie Kirk was. It was almost like an intervention.

Speaker 3 (01:07:23):
Bill Ackman one of the leading Jewish donors, He's a
Jewish guy, billionaire. Supposedly they all got Charlie Kirk to
this place in the Hamptons, which was Bill Ackman's house.
He hosted this thing. And so the narrative from Candie
so Wins and Ian Carol was is that Charlie Kirk

(01:07:44):
was sent here for an intervention. And there were even
people yelling at Charlie Kirk and saying you do not
speak against Israel, right, Like how dare you do this.
So a lot of that, like narrative of an intervention
seems to be a lot of bullshit from when I'm hearing,
and even Nick Ponte has this kind of calls that
out because he has reached out to so many influence.

(01:08:05):
They invited fifty conservative influencers to this event. Right, These
are people with I think a combined of over one
hundred million followers.

Speaker 2 (01:08:13):
So they invited these people.

Speaker 3 (01:08:15):
They had these panels, They talked about Israel, they talked
about like what the conservative influencers did not agree with,
they talked about what they did agree with. They kind
of all sussed all that out. They talked about it,
they discussed it. But what led to this is based
on a report from I think it's the Gray Zone.

(01:08:35):
The Gray Zone reported this and said that Charlie Kirk
essentially was sent to this place, Bill Ackman's house. He
was he was set down and there was like six
or seven people that were around him, and they wanted
to try to influence him to either be more pro Jewish,
pro Israel, or else.

Speaker 2 (01:08:56):
Right, that was the take.

Speaker 6 (01:08:58):
Yeah, But my take is I'm seeing Tucker Carlson and
Candace Owens going after everyone and they're sus to.

Speaker 2 (01:09:05):
Me, well, I don't think that. I look, I'll be
honest with you, I don't know.

Speaker 6 (01:09:10):
They have been sus before, even Charlie Kirk's death. No
going after people that were pro Israel.

Speaker 3 (01:09:17):
But listen, all I'm saying is is that I'm trying
to make this very clear. I think that what Cannas
Owens and Ian Carroll and some of these other people
reported about what happened at Bill Lackman's house is not accurate.
That's what I'm saying. And what I do think is
accurate though, and this is a whole nother thing. I
do encourage you guys to go and listen to last

(01:09:37):
night's Nick Fuinte's live stream is on Rumble. You guys
can listen to it in his entirety, and I think
you should because Nick fun Tas does an amazing job.
When I say that Nick Puntess is like very well spoken,
very well done, he really is. Yeah, And so if
you listen to this, he goes through everything, and there

(01:09:57):
are times in this speech where I'm thinking Nick fountays,
although he said that Israel didn't do this, there are
sometimes that you think that Israel did absolutely do this
because of what he is factually speaking, although he comes
back around and says, but here's why they didn't do
this right.

Speaker 2 (01:10:16):
So he does a great job.

Speaker 3 (01:10:17):
What we do know for it seems like a fact
is that Israel did come through various ways. Now I
even mention the names they offered Turning Point USA and
Charlie Kirk one hundred and fifty million.

Speaker 2 (01:10:32):
Dollars and what was this offer for?

Speaker 3 (01:10:36):
Well, if if you want to think about Charlie Kirk,
he has been on record on some podcasts like Megan
Kelly and some others where he has asked questions critical
of Israel. He also had Dave Smith, which is a
very critical person of Israel, on and on the stage
of Turning Point USA to where he was calling out

(01:10:57):
Israel right there at Turning Point u s stage. He
also asked very tough questions to high level ranking Israelis,
including Benjamin that y'all who I believe.

Speaker 2 (01:11:09):
So Charlie Kirk has.

Speaker 3 (01:11:10):
Been calling out a lot of stuff with Israel, which
is why many people believe that Israel offered him one
hundred and fifty million dollars to say you need to be
more pro Israel because this is and I think the
one hundred and fifty million dollar offer is actually factual
from everything that we've everything, I've researched, everything I've seen,
it is factual.

Speaker 7 (01:11:28):
I don't know.

Speaker 6 (01:11:28):
I just know and feel Charlie Kirk's beliefs in for
most of the time he was alive, he was.

Speaker 2 (01:11:37):
Pro Israel absolutely, and I'm not disagreeing with that.

Speaker 6 (01:11:40):
And no, now everyone's coming out of the you know,
the woodwork saying, oh, well, just last week he was
offered all this money or this was happening, or that
was happening.

Speaker 7 (01:11:50):
It's just to me, it's.

Speaker 6 (01:11:52):
A way to blame a fraction or a person or
a people or a group, to blame them for his
assassination where it's clearly not.

Speaker 3 (01:12:03):
Yeah, listen, I do not believe that this assassination was Israel.

Speaker 2 (01:12:09):
Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and tell you guys that
one percent.

Speaker 3 (01:12:12):
And do I agree with everything the Israel has done
and how they've reacted.

Speaker 2 (01:12:17):
Absolutely not. I think you all know this.

Speaker 3 (01:12:20):
But do I also agree with the fact that Israel
can come offer someone a political figure like Charlie Kirk
one hundred and fifty million dollars And I want to
make something very clear. After he turned the one hundred
and fifty million dollar offer down, it was about a
week later Benjamin att Yah who called him and said,
we want you to come to Israel. We want you

(01:12:41):
to experience Israel. We want you to go to the wall,
just like Marco Rubio just did. We want you to
touch the wall, and we want you to kiss the wall,
and we want to take pictures of this and make
sure that everyone sees this. Charlie Kirk denied that offer.
He said, I'm not coming to Israel because what I
will say about charl Kirk is although he was a

(01:13:01):
steadfast supporter of Israel, because I think him as a Christian.
Based on Christianity, you don't ever deny anyone. You don't
ever demonize anybody, no matter what it is, just like
we shouldn't demonize Muslims, just like we shouldn't demonize Jewish,
just like we shouldn't demonize any of these people.

Speaker 2 (01:13:20):
But Charlie Kirk was America first. That is one of
his main messages.

Speaker 3 (01:13:25):
Yes, he was supportive of Israel, and there is a
good reason for some of that.

Speaker 2 (01:13:31):
I mean, he was heavily supported by Israel.

Speaker 3 (01:13:33):
Turning point USA was funded a ton of money by Israel,
so there were a lot of in a lot of cases,
Charlie Kirk was handcuffed to where he couldn't say certain
things about Israel because it was heavily funded. This is
all factual. You can all go through the books of
Turning Point USA. And so when Charlie Kirk started to
turning this stuff down, First of all, I don't think

(01:13:55):
that Israel decided.

Speaker 2 (01:13:56):
They wanted to kill him because of this.

Speaker 3 (01:13:58):
But I do say, in think that for sure one
hundred and fifty million dollar offer was presented, he did
turn it down, and then he also turned down his
trip to Israel. And I think for Charlie that was
more based on his America first policy rather than it
was a policy of pro Israel. And by the way,

(01:14:20):
that's not something bad to say. No, we are Americans.
We are Americans, and we should be about America first.
We should be about it.

Speaker 6 (01:14:27):
We're so sick and tired of everything being blamed on
Israel and Israel is these you know right now, everyone thinks, oh,
you know, if something happened is Israel. Israel so powerful
and their masade is so powerful, they can do anything
in whatever they want to America. This is the mentality.

(01:14:50):
And it's a lot on the right too.

Speaker 2 (01:14:52):
Yeah, it is.

Speaker 3 (01:14:53):
And I think there's going to be a turning point
with this Israel thing, and I don't know what it's
going to be. Everybody's going to aside from themselves. It's
not something that I'm going to say or share. He's
going to say that's going to convince you either way.
I think that what I will tell you is that
you do your own research. Do not listen to us
about this. Do your own research, and do it in
a good way. Do it in a way that you

(01:15:15):
can factually support what you're actually researching. And if you
come to the conclude on if they come to the
conclusion based on facts and based on the things that
have happened, then that is what you need to do,
and that's what you need to feel and think going forward.

Speaker 2 (01:15:33):
This is not a conspiracy theory. No, APAK is not
a conspiracy theory.

Speaker 3 (01:15:39):
The amount of money that APAC influences our United States
government is far beyond any other nation in the world.
It is the only influence that the United States Commary say.

Speaker 6 (01:15:51):
That as long as Charlie kirkis stood for America and
America first. He's always done that, and he's going out.
He's against the wokeness, he's against against the leftness. Yes,
he supported Israel as a Christian most of his time. Okay,

(01:16:11):
the last couple of weeks, I guess maybe things have
come out that he wasn't so pro Israel or whatever,
and that doesn't give a reason to blame Israel in
this circumstance. No, I mean, this is an open and shutcase.
Maybe there's no Israel involved in this. No, I don't
in my opinion, I don't think so either. And I

(01:16:31):
will say this again, I don't think it is Israel either.

Speaker 2 (01:16:34):
For sure. I'm one of those people. It's not just
gonna go blame Israel. I think that's ridiculous. I think it.

Speaker 3 (01:16:39):
Hurts your cause if you blame Israel for anything, This
hurts your cause. And you know, even as we talk
to Jason Hanson tonight, you know CIA guy, there are
CIA guys that have come out on other podcasts that
have went far beyond anything Jason said tonight, whether it
be about Israel, whether it be about CI involvement in
US Paul or our surveillance or whatever. I think Jason

(01:17:02):
did a great job talking about you know how much
the government has the ability to spy on you, even
to the point of, as he said, useful idiot, Let's
find a useful idiot. Yeah, to then go and find
let's let's pin this guy, and let's do all of
our operation around this, even up into including text messaging people.

Speaker 2 (01:17:25):
That maybe he was involved with whatever. Do I think
this is the case with this guy.

Speaker 3 (01:17:30):
No, I don't, because I think that when you do that,
there's going to be things that are left out right.

Speaker 2 (01:17:36):
I don't think in the court of.

Speaker 6 (01:17:37):
It's saying it's not an open and checkcase. You don't
think he was the guy texting is No?

Speaker 2 (01:17:43):
I do, No, I do. Okay, I do think he is.
I do think he is.

Speaker 3 (01:17:47):
But we just don't know a lot about what he
did up until this point. Now, if his boyfriend, right,
if his boyfriend had no idea about this, he was,
you know, just like a husband, our wife is actively
trying to text someone else in their marriage, right, like
cheating on their spouse and trying to hide that. It

(01:18:08):
almost seems like maybe this is what he was doing
about this Charlie Kirk thing. He was in a group
that was radicalizing him. And I don't know what group
this was. I don't know who sponsored this group or
who was a part of this group. But if you
go back to the BLM riots, you go back to
Antifa all this stuff where it was highly coordinated. Just
like they fund BLM and Antifa, this is what they do.

(01:18:30):
They fund it, they organize it, they coordinate it. This
is a thing that happens, and they do it all
the time. Much of the protest that we see on
an everyday basis is coordinated and funded in some way,
shape or form for a political influence.

Speaker 2 (01:18:44):
And then the mainstream media.

Speaker 3 (01:18:46):
Also then also picks up on this, and in some
cases mainstream media is a.

Speaker 2 (01:18:50):
Part of this.

Speaker 3 (01:18:51):
They are a part of the funding of these protests
or of these uprisings. This is what some fact of
government or organizations use. So when you think about Fox News,
you think about CNN, you think about MSNBC, who funds
these people? Who coordinates this stuff? A lot of times

(01:19:11):
people think it's our government is CIA, and it could
be for their own specific beliefs, but it could also
potentially be outside organizations or people.

Speaker 2 (01:19:21):
There's no question about that.

Speaker 3 (01:19:22):
And you've got to think about who owns just go
down the rabbit hole, who owns the organizations, who owns
the media companies, who owns all these things? Obviously they're
going to have the massive stake in what it disseminated
to you or not. Just the same way that if
you are funded by certain people as a presidential candidate,
then your beliefs or your priorities and what you're going

(01:19:45):
to do as president are going to be based on
your biggest funders. That's all goes back to follow the money,
and everything is followed the money.

Speaker 2 (01:19:53):
So do I believe this is Israel?

Speaker 9 (01:19:55):
No?

Speaker 2 (01:19:55):
I don't.

Speaker 3 (01:19:56):
Could someone say tomorrow that they have a fact that
is that shows Israel?

Speaker 2 (01:20:01):
Yes? Could they also show a.

Speaker 3 (01:20:03):
Fact that's presented that is a ideological extremism, which is
like LGBTQ plus Open Society Foundation George Soros. Absolutely, I
think that's more credible. I think that's more likely. And
I think that this is something that we've been talking
about for years about George Soros and the World Economic

(01:20:23):
Forum and the movement to try to destroy America from within,
because what is this going to do? What is the
Charlie Kirk assassination going to benefit the most. It is
going to benefit the world government. It is going to
benefit the advancement of the world government and the division
of Americans, which is the sovereign nation of the United
States of America. And at the same time, you have

(01:20:44):
had all of these people come across our borders that
does not really give a shit about America. And so
those people are going to be utilized as protesters and
they're going to be funded. You know, you might think,
how are these people going to get jobs, especially in
an administration to where they're starting to try to take
out as many of these people as possible, how are
they going to be funded? Well, until they're taken out

(01:21:05):
of this country, they're going to be funded by organizations
like the socialist organizations from George Soris and the Open
Society Foundation, and then they are going to be heavily
utilized to divide America. And it's going to make it
look like it is half of Americans disagree with a
certain thing and the other half agree with.

Speaker 2 (01:21:22):
A certain thing.

Speaker 3 (01:21:23):
Although a lot of those people may not even be Americans,
they may not be anybody. And they're going to have
certain people on the news that are political actors or
I guess you can say crisis actors.

Speaker 2 (01:21:34):
We've seen this in many cases. They're going to make
sure they utilize.

Speaker 3 (01:21:37):
Mainstream media to make sure that you feel a certain
way about a certain thing. And you know, one of
the things I worry about the most, which we're probably
going to get into in a future episode, we actually
have someone that may come on our podcast very soon.
That's a huge YouTuber. He's been talking about this a lot.
But I do want to talk about where do we

(01:21:57):
go from here? And even with the t up administration,
you have Pam Bondi coming out now saying that we
get to create hate speech laws. This is literally what
the UK said about immigration.

Speaker 7 (01:22:09):
I agree.

Speaker 6 (01:22:09):
And where is the line? Where do you draw the
line as far as hate speech? Where do you draw
the line as far as surveillance? Where do you draw
the line from any of it? How do you keep
us safe and not surveyll us?

Speaker 3 (01:22:22):
Well, I think the biggest thing here is that we
just have to be vigilant. We have to understand that
when people are trying to push through laws of hate speech,
there's going to be someone that determines what hate speech is.
And whereas right now, if you're if you're a Trump supporter,
or you're a cash Betel or Pambondi supporter, maybe that

(01:22:43):
hate speech law goes for your benefit. Right, Maybe it's
like the people on the left. You want to silence,
you want to put in prison, you want to go
arrest these people because of what they're saying. But guess what,
once that law has been created, the next person in
line is going to be you next. When you disagree
with the Democrat president, when you disagree with the left,

(01:23:05):
when you disagree with whatever it is that you disagree with,
you're going to be the one put in prison. And
that's why we have to be very careful about what
and how we do yes laws.

Speaker 6 (01:23:16):
From this point, I agree, And I think there is
a difference between talking about not liking somebody and talking
about like idolizing their murder. Yeah, I think there is
a difference between the two, and we talked about that earlier.
You you can say all day, I don't like Charlie Kirk,
and this is why I don't like him. But when

(01:23:37):
you insinuate violence and you're glad he's dead or you
want him dead, or you want somebody else dead, it
crosses a line.

Speaker 3 (01:23:46):
Yeah, but they're not think there's already laws in place
for inciting violence, terroristic threats. There's all these laws already created, Like, so.

Speaker 2 (01:23:54):
Where are you going to go beyond that?

Speaker 3 (01:23:56):
The only place you can go beyond that is to
say that if you say something we don't agree with
because you're on the other side of the political argument,
then we can come and arrest you.

Speaker 2 (01:24:07):
That is literally what the UK is dealing with it
right now.

Speaker 3 (01:24:10):
We cannot go any further in our laws right now
than we already have. So we have terroistic threats, we
have communicating threats. Like if, for example, you're in your
hometown and someone calls you and says I'm gonna come
kill you, asshole, or whatever it is, and you have
a record and that you have proof of that, you
can call your local law enforcement. They will come and
take a report. Then they will issue a warrant for

(01:24:32):
communicating threats. That is what a communicating threat warrant is.
That is already a law. You can talk about inciting.

Speaker 6 (01:24:38):
Violence, but if you say rest in piss instead of
rest in peace.

Speaker 2 (01:24:42):
Doesn't matter. No, absolutely not, absolutely not. You should be
able to say that all day my speech.

Speaker 6 (01:24:47):
Absolutely yes, I agree, and I think even though I
don't like to see it or hear it.

Speaker 7 (01:24:53):
I don't think we should stop it because it is
like what you're saying.

Speaker 6 (01:24:58):
It's kind of like what happened with everyone was silenced
during COVID. If they didn't like what we were saying,
we were silenced. And I don't think it should happen
on either side.

Speaker 2 (01:25:09):
No, I don't either.

Speaker 3 (01:25:10):
And the thing we have to be very weary of
right now is that I know that we have a
lot of passionate beliefs and thoughts about Charlie Kirk's death,
but I can promise you that the number one thing
Charlie Kirk would never want is a censorship law that
says that you're not allowed to say certain things. Because

(01:25:32):
even if it is going right now against the left,
based on a hate speech law, the left could come
in as president and say that what Charlie Kirk has
literally built his entire career on was hate speech. If
he talks about LGBTQ, or he talks about trans you know,
trans people or whatever, if the Left is in, that

(01:25:52):
would be hate speech and you could be arrested and
put in prison.

Speaker 2 (01:25:56):
That is that is where we're at right now. And
I just want everybody to.

Speaker 3 (01:25:59):
Understand that we cannot just get jump on the bandwagon
and say, oh yeah, if they say Charlie Kirk, rest
and piss or, or maybe even I'm glad that he died,
or whatever the case is. You can't just automatically say well,
we should go to rest that person.

Speaker 6 (01:26:12):
That is their freedom of space, eliminated from their job.

Speaker 2 (01:26:16):
Fired, Yeah, fire from their job. I mean, that's up
to the employer.

Speaker 3 (01:26:20):
Whatever you say at any point in time is obviously
always subject to the people that are empowering you to
do or say or make money, right, I mean, and
that was always the excuse with social media, right. Social
media was always like, well, it's a private platform. So
if we don't like what you're saying, yeah, it's the

(01:26:41):
constitution of the United States. But if we don't like
what you're saying, we're going to censor you. I don't
think social media should censor any of that stuff. Do
I think people should be fired from their jobs for
their belief on Charlie Kirk.

Speaker 2 (01:26:55):
That's up to the employer.

Speaker 3 (01:26:57):
In reality, But I mean, you know, but then but
then you have to hold the employers to the constitutional beliefs.
You have to say that all employers, no matter what,
no matter who you are, as long as your employees
are following the Constitution, whether it's first and second and
third and whatever, fourth, fifth, sixth, seven, eighth Amendment, all
the other amendments, you can't fire this person.

Speaker 6 (01:27:19):
Yeah, but I have to say on the benefit of
like universities, high schools, you know, just regular schools. We
all are I was one of them at one time,
but we all sign contracts to be ethically like clear
on social media. You know, we couldn't even hold an
alcoholic beverage in a picture. Yeah, you know, we signed

(01:27:40):
a contract saying we're not going to put that out there.

Speaker 2 (01:27:43):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (01:27:44):
So I think that's the reason why they are able
to be fired for sure, easier contract because it's and
it's an ethical thing.

Speaker 2 (01:27:51):
Yeah, it's a contract. I mean moral turptitude.

Speaker 3 (01:27:54):
Right, in law enforcement, you have a moral turptitude clause,
and they can fire you because of whatever something you
did outside of work or inside of work was a
moral thing that represents the department in a bad light.
They can fire you for that. So, yes, you can
get fired based on what you say. Is it still
freedom of speech? Can you still have freedom of speech? Yes,

(01:28:16):
it's the same thing I say about X and Elon Musk,
where you know Elon Musk always says, well, it's freedom
of speech, but it's not necessarily freedom of reach.

Speaker 2 (01:28:26):
And I've always just highly debated this.

Speaker 3 (01:28:28):
It's like, Okay, well you can say whatever you want to,
but we're going to silence you to the point.

Speaker 2 (01:28:33):
Where you only reach like one hundred people.

Speaker 3 (01:28:35):
Even if you have one hundred thousand followers, we can
make it to where you only reach one hundred people.

Speaker 2 (01:28:42):
But as long as you were saying what.

Speaker 3 (01:28:43):
We want you to say, then you can reach fifty
one hundred and two hundred and five hundred thousand people.
I don't think that's really freedom of speech though, like
when you are when you are penalized for a constitutional
right based on either social media or maybe even a job,
I don't think that is I don't think that's right.
And just like conservatives did not think that was correct

(01:29:06):
when it was happening to them, we can't swing on
the other pendulum and say it's okay for if people
say certain things as long as it's not a criminal
act or inside in violence. We shouldn't pendulum swing on
the other side and say Oh, it's fine on this side,
but it's not fine if we do it. And that's
my point. And you know, there were people that were

(01:29:27):
heavily invested in George Floyd. You know, I could say
a lot of stuff about George Floyd. There was a
lot of also people that got fired on the right
because of their comments on George Floyd, and the left
celebrated it.

Speaker 2 (01:29:40):
But now when it's happening to the.

Speaker 3 (01:29:42):
Left, they don't celebrate it anymore. Now they're really pissed.
And it's something that we've said like four years ago.
Anything you're cheering on right now about what your government
is doing to the right eventually will happen to you.
And it's the exact same way that we're saying that
if Pambondy or ca Ash Mantel or whoever is coming
on here and they're saying that, hey, we have to

(01:30:04):
create hate speech laws. We got to create all these
laws to make sure that no one says anything bad
about this side of the fence that laws created. And
then if you have someone on the other side of
the fence that comes in and maybe they're a dictator,
maybe they're the worst president you ever have. Guess what
you already have that law now, so they can come
and arrest you and put you in prison for talking

(01:30:26):
bad about your president, our most foundational core belief. There's
a reason why the First Amendment is the number one.
There's a reason second Amendment is also a huge reason
because it protects us from tyranny. It protects us from
the government coming and destroying and killing us and being tyrannical.
But the First Amendment is the most important, and that's

(01:30:48):
why I think that Elon Musk has heavily talked about
the First Amendment. That's why he spent forty four billion dollars.
Although I don't agree with how the algorithm works on X,
but the First Amendment is the first ament for a reason.
Founding fathers, the people that created the Constitution of America
did not just think about what is the most important
thing which should be number one? Well, that's the first Amendment.

(01:31:08):
That's freedom of speech, that's freedom of saying what you
want to say as long as it is not inside
in violence.

Speaker 2 (01:31:14):
What is number two?

Speaker 4 (01:31:15):
Well?

Speaker 6 (01:31:15):
Number do we get what is inciting violence and what
is not? Where is the boundary.

Speaker 2 (01:31:22):
Inside in violence?

Speaker 3 (01:31:23):
In my opinion, would be saying that I want to
go kill someone or I think someone should go and
do this, right, that is like almost a plan that
they are that they're talking about. But if you like,
if someone, I mean hell, say that you're in North
Korea and Kim Jong un got assassinated and you, as

(01:31:43):
a people that were oppressed for so long, Right, if you,
as a people that were pressed for so long, start
to celebrate and then you were all sent off to
prison because you celebrated how tyrannical and dictatorship that this
government was, how heinous this person was. If you sell
celebrate it, that's not a law. That's not something that
you should be arrested for. I mean, it sucks if

(01:32:06):
you're on the other side of that. You know, if
you know, if you love Charlie Kirk, if you love
all these people, it sucks. You don't want you don't
want people to celebrate that. But you know what the
biggest challenge of the First Amendment is the speech that
you do not agree with, right. And you know, it's
it's easy to hear and look at and hear and

(01:32:26):
read speech that you agree with.

Speaker 7 (01:32:29):
That's easy, Right.

Speaker 2 (01:32:30):
The speech that you.

Speaker 3 (01:32:31):
Don't agree with is what's going to be what gets
us forward. I mean, however that is and you know,
do I say, like, yes, if you're in if you're
in some group like Telegram or Discorder, whoever, and you're
planning an assassination, or if you say that I'm going
to go kill this person and you're on one of
these apps, then yes.

Speaker 2 (01:32:53):
That is a law you're breaking. You are literally threatening someone.

Speaker 3 (01:32:58):
That is that at the very least a local level
is communicating threats, but typically politically that is a that
is a terroristic threat. So you should be at least
investigated and number two probably arrested, and you know, and
then they should start researching this. As you already heard
Jason Hansen say, the government hears and knows everything you say.

(01:33:19):
There's a reason why this. The former CIA guy, Jason Hansen,
which is one of the most ford facing CIA guys
in the history of the CIA, which is who we
just had on, says that when I go in any
type of meeting or I go anywhere I don't want
someone to hear me, I leave my phone, I leave
everything that could possibly hear me away.

Speaker 2 (01:33:36):
From where I'm at.

Speaker 3 (01:33:37):
I don't have an Amazon Alexa, which is why I
literally threw it fifty feet up in the air and
it crashed on earth.

Speaker 7 (01:33:43):
Yeah, but we still have a firestick TV, so.

Speaker 2 (01:33:46):
Yeah we do. I'm going to go break those now.

Speaker 7 (01:33:49):
Oh you are not doing that.

Speaker 2 (01:33:52):
I like that fire But what I'm saying is is
that we.

Speaker 3 (01:33:59):
It's just a strange world we live in and the
reality of this is and we're probably going to have
to get in a whole nother episode about this soon
and I hope that we have heavy Dead Country on sin,
but we have to think about Like, I understand that
you want to say what you want to say, and
we should always value freedom of speech. But there is

(01:34:19):
something that is happening in America. First of all, after
Charlie Kirk's death. I don't think we're ever ever as
a nation going to return previous to Charlie Kirk's assassination.
I think we are a new nation. I think we
are a new people. I think that we're never ever
going to go back to what that was, very similarly

(01:34:39):
to how we as a nation and also a world,
are never going to go pre COVID ever. Again, we
have forever been changed, whether you realize it or not,
and I think most of you do realize that you
just may not realize in all the aspects of how
we're changed and how we're different. But pre COVID, we
were much different, even going back to the nineties. I

(01:35:00):
talk to people about this all day, like all the time,
even pre social media, Like, pre social media was amazing.
It was like to me, that was life, that was
what life I think should be. And then you have
social media. We didn't realize what the threats and the
dangers were of social media until we really got into
the deep dark weeds of social media. And I think

(01:35:21):
we're starting to see a lot of that. We're never
going to go back beyond that again. And so now
that we have all these things, just like COVID, just
like people for JFKA, see why.

Speaker 6 (01:35:31):
Schools are trying to get phones out of the schools
now and not allowing kids to be on their phones
during school.

Speaker 3 (01:35:38):
Yeah, that's not going to help though, I mean it
may help, but it may help at least try to
get them locked in on whatever.

Speaker 2 (01:35:44):
But we I think we're all like an eighty D society.

Speaker 7 (01:35:47):
Oh yeah, I mean I watched my phone all day.

Speaker 2 (01:35:49):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:35:50):
I just think that we're never going to return from
the Charlie kirk assassination and if Charlie Kirk was watching
and looking down right now, and I hope he is.
I hope he can see what is happening in this
world because of him.

Speaker 2 (01:36:03):
So anyways, that's gonna do it.

Speaker 3 (01:36:05):
I just wanted to touch on that we have a
special guest coming on hopefully this week. We'll let you
guys know, and it'll probably be the next couple of days.
It's been a tough week. It's been a tough couple
of weeks for us for sure, and I know it
has been for you guys.

Speaker 2 (01:36:19):
It's not just us, is I think you as well.
I think when you saw those videos, you.

Speaker 3 (01:36:26):
Really took that in. That's something that is going to
be very hard for you to get over, and maybe
you never do. You know, there are people that there
are people that are in law enforcement and firefighting and
ems and all these various factions that they see certain
things throughout their career that they never get over.

Speaker 2 (01:36:44):
It changes them forever.

Speaker 3 (01:36:46):
And unfortunately, I mean, we saw what happened to JFK
that was on like a kind of a grainy video,
the Zueberuter film and all that, it still wasn't as
graphic as what we saw with Charlie Kirk, and I
don't think that a lot of people are going to
be able to get over this, but that's also, I
think a blessing in disguise. I think that at the

(01:37:07):
very least, I don't think Charlie Kirk felt anything. I
felt like that God is going to use his death
for his own glory. And I think that's something that
Charlie Kirk would preach even right now, if he could
come back and tell you, guys, something would be that that.
Regardless it wasn't God that did this, but He's definitely
not going to let his death go to waste. And

(01:37:30):
I think that we're seeing this all around the world.
And the reason why I'm going to close this episode
with For the Good by joy Spring is because For
the Good just talks about, and we've played this on
the other episodes. It talks about you may not necessarily
understand why something happened, why you're going through this hard time,

(01:37:50):
why you're going through hell, why you just lost someone,
why whatever whatever whatever it is you're going through, why
it is that you're going through it. But God, God
always has a plan and it's all for the good
and whether you realize it or not, you just got
to trust in that plan. And as horrific as Charlie
Kirk's death was, I think we just have to understand

(01:38:13):
that it's not. Charlie Kirk is not suffering, and instead
he is inspiring millions and millions of people around the
world to be better people at the.

Speaker 2 (01:38:25):
Very least, and to turn to God.

Speaker 3 (01:38:28):
There are baptisms and savings all around the world right now.

Speaker 2 (01:38:32):
And if anything.

Speaker 3 (01:38:34):
Charlie Kirk ever worked for, his fruits of his labor
are finally coming true, beyond.

Speaker 2 (01:38:41):
What he ever thought he could accomplish on Earth. Guys,
the next time, we'd love you. Thank you Jason for
coming on piece.

Speaker 1 (01:38:47):
Out you working.

Speaker 11 (01:39:00):
Old things.

Speaker 1 (01:39:03):
In thing, you working, don working for the guys those
you called according.

Speaker 11 (01:39:16):
To your purpose, for the guys, those you called according
to your plan.

Speaker 12 (01:39:26):
You are work. You areking for the guy.

Speaker 11 (01:39:33):
You are work. You are working for the guys.

Speaker 1 (01:39:41):
In all things, in all things and scenes you're working.
Then working.

Speaker 11 (01:39:55):
Jos ah see.

Speaker 12 (01:40:05):
Let's see you.

Speaker 1 (01:40:07):
Wor kids shout or kids uh for the gud.

Speaker 12 (01:40:15):
Those you call according to your purse, for the guy,
those you call according to your plan. Well you work,
You are work for the good. You are work.

Speaker 11 (01:40:37):
You are work for the God.

Speaker 8 (01:40:43):
We will trust, we will trust in you. We will shoust,
weill see you, we will shot. We will trust is you.

Speaker 1 (01:41:06):
We will trust, we will see you.

Speaker 11 (01:41:13):
For the guy.

Speaker 1 (01:41:17):
Those who called according to your.

Speaker 12 (01:41:19):
Purpose, for the Gul, those who.

Speaker 11 (01:41:25):
Called according to your plane, and for the God of
those who call according to your purses, For the guy
of those you call calling to your plan. You are work.

(01:41:46):
You want to work for the guy. You are work.
You are work for

Speaker 12 (01:42:00):
Ulia claiming bea